Part 5

Sem, the son of Noe,—our author means Palestine and Syria. The Mamalukes of Egypt remained in possession of Sham, or Syria, till the conquest of Timur, 1400 of our era. He mentions in his Institutes, p. 148, the Defeat of the Badishah of Miser and Sham ‎‏شام‏‎. After the retreat of Timur, the Mamalukes again took possession of the country, and held it till the conquest of the Othomans. “Egypt was lost,” says Gibbon, “had she been defended only by her feeble offspring; but the Mamalukes had breathed in their infancy the keenness of the Scythian air; equal in valour, superior in discipline, they met the Moguls in many a well-fought field, and drove back the stream of hostility to the eastward of the Euphrates.”—Gibbon iv. 270. See also p. 175, 261. It is known that “this government of the slaves” lasted by treaty under the descendents of Selim, and was only destroyed in our times by a signal act of treachery of Mehmed, Pasha of Egypt.

Note (72), page 50.

“Antioch was finally occupied and ruined by Bondocdar, or Bibars, Sultan of Egypt and Syria.”—Gibbon iv. 175. Antioch never rose again after this destruction; it is now in a very decayed state, and has only about 10,000 inhabitants. The Turks pronounce the name _Antakie_.

Note (73), page 50.

Confiding in his Mogulian allies, or masters, Hethum took many places, which formerly paid tribute to the Mamaluke sovereigns; they asked of him, therefore, either to restore them their former possessions, or to pay tribute.—Chamchean, 339.

Note (74), page 50.

This is certainly very remarkable. It had never happened before in the history of the world, and will perhaps, never happen in future times, that the kings of Georgia and Armenia, the Sultans of Iconium, the Emirs of Persia, the ambassadors of France, of Russia, of Thibet, Pegu, and Tonquin, met together in a place about nine thousand miles to the north-west of Pekin, and that life and death of the most part of these nations depended on the frown or smile of a great khan. M. Rémusat has written a very learned and ingenious dissertation on the situation of Caracorum.—Abul Fazel (Ayeen Akbery ii. 336, London edition, 1800), lays down ‎‏قراقوروم‏‎, Caracurem, long. 111. 0. lat. 44. 45. All the residences of the khan were distinguished by the general name of _Kharibaligh_ (town or residence of the khan), and this has led astray many historians and geographers.

Note (75), page 52.

Jacobus I. died 1268, and is considered a very great man by the Armenians; they call him the _Sage_ and the Doctor. Jacobus has written some ecclesiastical tracts, and a very fine song on the nativity of the Virgin Mary, which is printed in the Psalm-book of the Armenian church.

Note (76), page 53.

This seems to be the Greek word μακαρίος, “beatus,” “blessed,” &c.

Note (77), page 54.

Nobody receives the degree of a Vartabed without having previously undergone a strict examination: it is something like the doctor of philosophy of the German universities; but a Vartabed, that is to say _a teacher_, is rather more esteemed in Armenia than a doctor of philosophy in Germany. The Vartabed receives at his inauguration a staff, denoting the power to teach, reprove, and exhort in every place with all authority. (See the Biography of Gregory _Wartabed_, as the word is spelt there, in the Missionary Herald, vol. xxiv. 140.) It is very probable that this institution came in the fifth century of our era from the philosophic schools in Athens to Armenia; nearly all the classical writers of this age went to Athens for their improvement.

Note (78), page 54.

Leon III. gave orders to make new copies of all the works of the former classical writers of the nation; in our eyes, his greatest praise.

Note (79), page 55.

The King’s secretary cannot find words enough to praise his master; in his zeal, he accumulates words upon words which signify the same: I have passed over some of these repetitions. Vahram, without being aware of it, describes his master more as a pious monk than as a prudent king. Why does the Secretary of State not give any reason for the rebellious designs of the Armenian chieftains?

Note (80), page 55.

From the time of Herodotus and Zoroaster to this day, the Turcomans carried on their nomadical life, and as it seems, without much change in their manners and customs. The text of Herodotus and Polybius may be explained by the embassies of Muravie and Meyendorn to Khiva and Buchara. Many of these Turcoman shepherds were driven to Asia Minor by the destruction of the Charizmian empire by the Moguls; the inroads and devastations of the Charizmian shepherds have been described by many contemporary authors, and the Crusaders experienced a great defeat from these savages.

Note (81), page 57.

The Egyptians having retired, Leon went against their allies one by one.

Note (82), page 58.

The successor of Hulagou, khan of Persia.

Note (83), page 58.

Here Vahram calls even the Moguls Tadjiks,—is it because they governed Persia?

Note (84), page 58.

Vahram calls here the territory of the Seljuks of Iconium _Turkestan_. As regards the etymology of the word, he is quite in the right; but what we are accustomed to call _Turkestan_, is a country rather more to the north-east.

Note (85), page 59.

Here ends the Chronicle; but Vahram adds some reflections which I thought proper to subjoin, and only to pass over his so often repeated pious sentiments.

Note (86), page 60.

The monk Vahram is not tired of repeating the same thought in twenty different ways, but I was tired of translating these repeated variations of the same theme, and the reader would probably have been tired in reading them. Why should we waste our time in translating and reading sermons, from which nothing else could be learned, than that the author said what had been said long before him, in a better style. Why should we think it worth our while to study the groundless reasoning of a mind clouded by superstition?

APPENDIX.

_Letters between Pope Innocent III. and Leon the First Armenian King of Cilicia._

During the middle ages, the clergy governed the world, and the Pope, as the head of the clergy, was also the head of what then was called the Christian Republic. All transactions of any note are therefore contained, or at least spoken of, in the vast collections of letters or Regesta of the followers of St. Peter. To be united with the Roman Catholic Church was, in fact, (particularly during the Crusades,) the same as acknowledging the Pope as the supreme umpire, not only in the spiritual but also in the civil government of the country; this is clearly to be seen in the following letters. If the Popes could not speak to every king as they did to the impotent sovereign of Cilicia, it was certainly not their fault. The following letters exist only, as far as I know, in the Latin tongue, and are taken from the _Regesta Innoc. III._, lib. ii., pp. 208, 209, 247, 44. I give the text of these letters according to Galanus, who accompanied them with a translation into the Armenian language. (Conciliat. Eccles. Arm. cum Romana. Romæ, 1650; vol. i., p. 357).

* * * * *

Leo Armeniæ Rex, Reverendissimo in Christo Patri et Domino, Innocentio, Dei gratia Summo Pont. et universali Papæ, tanto, ac tali honore Dignissimo.

_De suo erga veram Religionem, et Sedem Apostolicam amore; et quod petat auxilium contra Sarracenos._

Leo per eandem, et Romani Imperii gratiam Rex omnium Armeniorum, cum salutatione seipsum, et quicquid potest. Gloria, laus, et honor omnipotent Deo, qui Vos tantum, et talem pastorem Ecclesiæ suæ præesse voluit, vestris bonis meritis exigentibus: et tam fructuosam, et firmam fabricam super fundamentum Apostolorum componere, et tantum lumen, super candelabrum positum, toti Orbi terrarum ad salutem totius Christianitatis effundere dignatus est. In vestri vero luminis gratia, salutaribus monitis Reverendiss. Patris nostri Archiepiscopi Moguntini,[4] instruct et informati _omne Regnum nobis à Deo commissum, amplissimum, et spatiosum, et omnes Armenios, huc illuc in remotis partibus diffusos, ad unitatem Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ_, divina inspirante dementia, _revocare cupimus, et exoptamus_. Ad hæc calamitates, miserias, paupertates, et imbecillitatem. Regni Syriæ,[5] et nostrum, per ipsum prædictum Moguntinum (quia difficilior labor erat scripto retexere) Pietati vestræ patefacimus. Ipse vero per singula rei veritatem vobis explicabit: in cujus notitiam ista non præteriere. Hanc utique contritionem, et collisionem in valle destituti lacrymarum jamdiu sustinuimus; quod de cætero sine spe subsidii, et auxilii vestri sustinere nequimus. Verum quia zelus domus Dei tepescere non debet in cordibus tam vestro, quam nostro, non ut personam instruentis geramus, ejusdem domus decorem diligere, et pro eadem domo murum nos oportet opponere; ut impetus, quem super eam faciunt inimici Crucis, co-operante Dei gratia, collectis in unum animi viribus, resistendo excludamus. Hinc est, quod vestram flexis genibus imploramus pietatem, quatenus lacrymabilibus Domini Moguntini precibus, et nostris divino intuitu aures misericordiæ porrigatis: et miseriis Christianitatis compatientes, subsidium Christianissimum nobis accurrendo mittatis, antequam irremeabile, quod absit, incurramus diluvium; immo cum Dei, et vestro auxilio, evaginato ense, de Hur Chaldæorum, et persecutione Pharaonis liberari possimus. Datum Tarsi, anno ab incarnatione Domini, MCXCIX. mense Majo. die xxiij.

* * * * *

_Innocentii III. ad præcedentem Leonis epist. responsio; qua laudat illius studium erga Sedem Apost. cujus primatum demonstrat; hortatur, ut in obedientia ejusdem S. Sedis fideliter perseveret; et subsidium contra Sarracenos cito se missurum pollicetur._

Is Ecclesiam suam, congregatam ex gentibus, non habentem maculam, neque rugam super gentes et Regna constituit; is extendit palmites ejus usque ad mare, et usque ad terminos terræ ipsius propagines dilatavit; cujus est terra, et plenitudo ejus, Orbis terrarum, et universi qui habitant in eo, ipse etiam Romanam Ecclesiam non solum universis fidelibus prætulit, sed supra cæteras Ecclesias exaltavit: ut cæteræ ab ea non tam vivendi normam, et morum sumerent disciplinam, sed et fidei etiam catholicæ documenta reciperent, et ejus servarent humiliter instituta. In Petro enim Apostolorum Principe, cui excellentius aliis Dominus ligandi et solvendi contulit potestatem, dicens ad eum: quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in cœlis: et quodcunque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in cœlis: Ecclesia Romana, sedes ejus, et Sessores ipsius Romani Pontifices, successores Petri, et vicarii Jesu Christi, sibi invicem per successivas varietates temporum singulariter succedentes, super Ecclesiis omnibus, et cunctis Ecclesiarum Prelatis, immo etiam fidelibus universis a Domino primatum et magisterium acceperunt: vocatis sic cæteris in partem solicitudinis, ut apud eos plenitudo resideat potestatis. Non enim in Petro, et cum Petro singulare illud privilegium expiravit, quod successoribus ejus futuris usque in finem Mundi Dominus in ipso concessit; sed præter vitæ sanctitatem, et miraculorum virtutes, par est in omnibus jurisdictio successorum; quos etsi diversis temporibus, eidem tamen Sedi, et eadem auctoritate Dominus voluit præsidere. Gaudemus autem, quod tu, sicut Princeps catholicus, Apostolicæ Sedis privilegium recognoscens, venerabilem fratrem nostrum Moguntinum Archiepiscopum, Episcopum Sabinensem, unum ex septem Episcopis, qui nobis in Ecclesia Romana collaterales existunt, benigne, ac hilariter recepisti; et non solum per eum institutis salutaribus es instructus, quibus juxta continentiam litterarum tuarum totum Regnum tuum licet amplissimum desideras informari, et universos Armenos ad Ecclesiæ Romanæ gremium revocare; sed _ad honorem, et gloriam Apostolicæ Sedis, quam constitutam esse novisti super gentes, et regna, diadema regni recepisti de manibus ejus_; et eum curasti devote, ac humiliter honorare: et nos per ipsum, et litteras tuas ad orientalis terræ subsidium invitasti. Ei ergo, a quo est omne datum optimum, et omne donum, perfectum, qui habet corda Principum in manu sua, quas possumus, gratias referentes, quod tibi tantæ humilitatis animum inspiravit; rogamus Serenitatem Regiam, et exhortamur in Domino, ac _per Apostolica tibi scripta mandamus_, quatenus in timore Domini, et Apostolicæ Sedis devotione persistens, ad expugnandam barbariem Paganorum, et vindicandam injuriam Crucifixi, tanto potentius, et efficacius studeas imminere; quanto fraudes et versutias hostium vicinius positus melius cognovisti: non in exercitus multitudine, aut virtute, sed de ipsius potius miseratione confidens, qui docet manus ad prælium, et digitos movet ad bellum; qu arcus fortium superat, et robore accingit infirmos. Jam enim per Dei gratiam ad commonitionem nostram multi Crucis signaculum receperunt, et plures Domino dante recipient, in defensionem orientalis Provinciæ opportuno tempore transituri. Jam etiam duo ex fratribus nostris de manibus nostris vivificæ Crucis assumpsere vexillum, exercitum Domini præcessuri. Confide igitur, et esto robustus, quia citius forsitan, quam credatur, orientalis Provincia subsidium sentiet expectatum. Dat. Later. viii. kal. Decembris.

* * * * *

_Idem Innocentius Papa ad illustriss. Regem Armeniæ. Quod ipsi transmittat vexillum beati Petri, quo contra Crucis inimicos utatur._

_After some previous passages_:—Et tibi congaudemus, et Nobis, immo etiam universo Populo Christiano; quod eum tibi Dominus inspiravit affectum, ut Apostolicæ Sedis instituta devote reciperes, et præcepta fideliter observares, et contra inimicos Crucis propositum illud assumeres, ut in eos vindicare cupias injuriam Crucifixi, et hæreditatem ejus de ipsorum manibus liberare. Nos igitur de tuæ devotionis sinceritate confisi, ad petitionem dilecti filii Roberti de Margat militis, nuncii tui, in nostræ dilectionis indicium, vexillum beati Petri tuæ Serenitati dirigimus; quo in hostes Crucis duntaxat utaris, et eorum studeas contumaciam cum Dei auxilio, suffragantibus Apostolorum Principis meritis, refrænare. Datum Later. xvi. kal. Januarii.

* * * * *

_Leonis Armeniæ Regis ad Innocentium III. epistola; qua ad præcedentem respondet, et privilegium ab eo petit._

_After some other passages_:—Paternitatis vestræ litteras, quas per dilectum fidelem Nuncium nostrum nobis direxistis, ea qua decuit reverentia, et devotione suscepimus; et per earum significata pleno collegimus intellectu, Vos charitatis visceribus Regiam Majestatem nostram amplexari. Continebant etiam quod in devotione, et amore Apostolicæ Sedis persisteremus; et in hoc semper perseverare cupimus; et optamus, et testis est rerum effectus, dum _de omnibus negotiis nostris ad Sedem Apostolicum appellamus_. Misistis autem nobis per eundem Nuncium vexillum sancti Petri in memoriale dilectionis Sedis Apostolicæ, quod semper ante nos portari contra inimicos Crucis ad honorem Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ faciemus ... Præterea nos obedientiæ vinculis de cætero Apostolicæ Sedi esse alligatos, non dubitetis; ea propter, si placet Sanctitati vestræ, cuilibet alteri Ecclesiæ Latinæ nec volumus, nec debemus alligari. Hinc est, quod Sanctitatem vestram humiliter flagitamus, quatenus nobis litteras apertas mittere dignemini, ut non teneamur videlicet cum Latinis de terra nostra de qualibet conditione, excepta sancta Romana Ecclesia, cuilibet Ecclesiæ Latinæ: et quod non habeat potestatem, nos, seu Latinos de terra nostra excommunicandi, vel sententiam in Regno nostro proferendi super Latinos quælibet Ecclesia, excepta, ut dictum est, Sede Apostolica.[6] Præsentium quoque latorem, dilectum, et fidelem nostrum militem, nomine Garnere Teuto ad pedes Sanctitatis vestræ dirigimus; cui super his, quæ ex parte nostra vobis indixerit, tanquam Nobis ipsis credere, ne dubitetis, &c.

* * * * *

_Ex indulto Regis Armeniæ, a Domino Papa Innocentio III. sibi facto._

Volentes igitur, quantum cum Deo possumus, tuæ Serenitati deferre, et _cum honestate nostra petitineso Regias exaudire_; tuis precibus inclinati, auctoritate præsentium inhibemus, ne quis in te, vel Regnum tuum, aut homines Regni tui, cujuscunque conditionis existant qui mediantibus tamen ejusdem Regni Prælatis, Sedi Apostolicæ sunt subjecti, præter Romanum Pontificem, et ejus Legarum, vel de ipsius speciali mandato, districtionem Ecclesiasticam audeat exercere,[7] &c.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE ARMENIAN BARONS AND KINGS OF CILICIA

(ACCORDING TO CHAMCHEAN.)

Rouben I. 1080

Constantine I. 1095

Thoros I. 1100

Leon I. 1123

_Interregnum_ 1138

Thoros II. 1144

Thomas Bail, regent 1168

Meleh 1169

Rouben II. 1174

Leon II.[8] 1185

Sabel or Isabella, queen 1219

Philippus 1220

_Interregnum_ 1222

Hethum or Haithon I. 1224

Leon III. 1269

Hethum II., also called Johannes 1289

Thoros III. 1293

Hethum II. (second time) 1295

Sembad 1296

Constantine II. 1298

Hethum III. 1300

Leon IV. 1305

Odshin 1308

Leon V. 1320

Constantine III. 1342

Guido 1343

Constantine IV. 1345

_Interregnum_ 1363

Leon VI. 1368

End of the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia 1375

FOOTNOTES

[1] Nicetas II. p. 148. I wonder that Montesquieu, in making use of this passage of Nicetas (Grandeur et Decadence des Romains, ch. xxii.), has not been struck with its incorrectness; it did not escape the critical discernment of Gibbon: the Decline and Fall, etc. ch. 49. n. 17.

[2] Bruce’s Annals of the East-India Company, iii. 88. The mercantile companies trading to different parts of Asia found every where the Armenians in their way; the Armenians became jealous on the new intruders of their commerce, and tried to remove them by intrigues. See Hanway, i. 303.

[3] Pompey the Great had vanquished the Albanians, who brought into the field twelve thousand horse and sixty thousand foot. Plutarch in Pompeio., t. ii. p. 1165. Gibbon, chap. xlvi. n. 6.

[4] See the Notes 53 and 54 to the text of Vahram’s Chronicle.

[5] This part of Palestine and Syria, which belonged to the Latins.

[6] Leon was on bad terms with the clergy of Antioch, and the latin princes were eager to unite Cilicia with their dominions.

[7] There are some other matters, regarding the history of the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia, spoken of in the _Regesta Innocentii III._; but it is not our object to write the history of that kingdom. We only collect materials for a future historian, who might certainly draw some other valuable accounts from _Belouacensis Spec. Hist._, from _Sanutus_ and from _Hayto_ or _Hethum’s Hist. Orient_. We may here observe, that Vahram, who is eager to tell all that is to the honour and glory of the Church, says nothing about the baptism of the great Chan of the Moguls.

[8] Leon was the first king, the former princes are only called barons of Cilicia.

The Translator finds it necessary to remark for the information of the reader of “_The History of Vartan_,” that, not being in this country when the work went to press, there occurred some slight errors, particularly in the orthography of proper names. We shall at present only notice the following:—

Preface, p. vii, line 6, for _Esrick_ read _Esnik_. p. xxii, line 13, for _of_ Moh. read _before_ Moh. p. 5, line 21, for _Dadjgabdan_ read _Dadjgasdan_. p. 75, line 21, for _Bardesares_ read _Bardesanes_.

Transcriber’s Note

The errors above refer to a different book. The following probable mistakes in _this_ one were noticed and changed.

Page 69, “geoprapher” changed to “geographer” (the geographer alluded to)

Page 73, “Amenian” changed to “Armenian” (printed in Armenian, at Venice)

Page 73, “seasame” changed to “sesame” (abounding in sesame, panic, millet, wheat and barley)

Page 76, “certrin” changed to “certain” (it is likewise certain that the language)

Page 90, “Mogolian” changed to “Mongolian” (the head of the Mongolian confederacy)

Page 91, “Quardo” changed to “Quadro” (Quadro della Storia)

Page 92, “Palastine” changed to “Palestine” (our author means Palestine and Syria)

Page 101, “calamitatess” changed to “calamitates” (Ad hæc calamitates, miserias, paupertates)

Page 101, “omus” changed to “domus” (ejusdem domus decorem diligere)

Page 101, “not ... faciuns” changed to “nos ... faciunt” (nos oportet opponere; ut impetus, quem super eam faciunt)

LONDON: Printed by J. L. Cox, Great Queen Street, Lincoln’s-Inn Fields.